In a special legislative session last week, New Mexico lawmakers passed a bill that would create a voluntary system of public financing for the state's judicial candidates. Governor Bill Richardson, who requested that the legislature consider the measure, signed the bill into law last Friday. Effective July 1, public funds will be available for New Mexico Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judicial candidates.

According to an Associated Press story which ran in the Sante Fe New Mexican and the Alamogordo Daily News, judicial candidates who opt into the system of public financing will receive a specified amount of public money and agree not to take funds from any other source. Governor Richardson believes that this new system will

Last Monday, the editors at the Chicago Sun-Times wrote in favor of the Fair Elections Now Act, the public financing bill introduced in March by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). The editorial did two things very well.

First, it outlined the problems with the current system of funding federal campaigns, including the enormous costs, the disproportionate influence of special interests groups, and the loss of public confidence in the system. The editors rose to the first challenge of convincing people that public financing is a good thing by presenting the many flaws with a privately financed system. Second, the editors helped to quell some fears and misperceptions of public financing, fears that they admitted to having themselves.

The comprehensive and accurate overview of the legislation focuses in part on the necessary "seed money" to qualify a candidate for public funds.

The editorial is combating misperceptions about public financing in the most effective way possible: cold, hard facts about what this bill would do and why it is absolutely necessary in a time of out-of-control campaign costs and corruption.

It's official --Last Thursday, the FEC, at the request of Sen. Barack Obama, ruled that the 2008 presidential hopefuls can legally reserve the option of returning private donations in return for public funds upon winning their party's nomination. What began as an intriguing, eye brow-raising request has turned into a decision that may dramatically shape the fundraising race for the presidency. And even though this decision was made at the prompting of Sen. Obama, it will undoubtedly affect the fundraising choices of every one of the presidential candidates.

Late last Thursday, Feb. 22, the Federal Elections Commission released a draft Advisory Opinion in response to Sen. Barack Obama's request to provisionally raise money for the general election while maintaining the option of returning those funds, should he get the Democratic nomination, in order to accept public funds.  The drafted opinion, which must be approved by the Commission, grants Sen. Obama's request provided that he keep private funds in a separate account not to be used for any purpose and that he return the contributions in full if he chooses to ultimately take public funds. The Commission is scheduled to meet tomorrow, March 1, to discuss the opinion.

This opinion, which a Washington Post editorial says is very likely to be approved by the Commission, is significant in two important ways. First, if it is approved, as a matter of precedent, it will allow future candidates to preserve the public financing system the way that Sen. Obama would. Second, and as the Post editorial notes, this new option available to candidates for the 2008 election may actually materialize, as it was suggested by one of the front-runners in the race:

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has raised many eyebrows in the past few weeks with his novel, somewhat surprising, suggestion regarding the potential public funding of his campaign for the presidency.  On Feb. 1, the Obama Exploratory Committee submitted a request to the Federal Elections Commission for an Advisory Opinion (AO). The committee is asking the FEC if it is within legal limits for Sen. Obama to "provisionally" take funds from private donors for his campaign but to also have the option, should he get the Democratic nomination, of returning those contributions in order to accept public funds. However, this would only happen if the Republican opponent also agreed to do so.

This proposition is wrought with intrigue, not to mention brilliant strategy. By making the request to the FEC, Sen. Obama has made it publicly known that he is not precluding the use of public funds. That's likely to make some supporters of public financing very happy, especially after the disappointment such individuals may have felt after Hillary Clinton -by some media accounts - single-handedly killed the presidential public financing system. The proposition, if accepted by the FEC and if Sen. Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, also presents a challenge to the Republican opponent to fight fair. The political costs incurred by the Republican nominnee for turning down such a noble challenge are immeasureable.

As we push toward the introduction of a federal clean elections bill, we have seen a recent surge of media coverage on the issue. Though these news stories do not necessarily deal directly with the federal bill, they serve to prime people to begin thinking about the benefits of a public financing system.

A few highlights in the news this past week:

Rep. Jason Altmire, the Democrat who defeated incumbent Melissa Hart for the 4th district Pennsylvania seat, has made the news for his fund-raising prowess despite his pledge to support full public funding of campaigns. Altmire is one of the 103 representatives who signed Common Cause's "Voters First Pledge," which asked candidates running for office to publically show their support for clean elections. But don't be concerned: Altmire promises to honor his pledge:

It's a shame that someone who adamantly supports clean elections, like Altmire does, must yield to the political "game" in order to stay competitive.